The Electronic Frontier Foundation tears into the Recording Industry Association of America's controversial lawsuit campaign as it looks back over the past four years

Against a climate of litigation
and DRM, the Electronic Frontier Foundation released “RIAA v. The People:
Four Years Later,” a
report (PDF) examining the entertainment’s anti-piracy efforts four years after
the first P2P lawsuits targeting users.

The 25-page report -- which includes nine pages of citations --
covers broad territory, chronicling the record industry’s various legal
campaigns and why each one has failed. Starting with the RIAA’s early attempts
to “sue the technology,” the EFF argues that each successive attempt to curb
piracy with litigation has no effect at best and, at worse, drives piracy even further underground: “In response to the RIAA lawsuits, many filesharers
are beginning to opt for new file sharing technologies that protect their
anonymity,” the EFF writes, “[and] infiltrating these private P2P circles is
much more difficult than simply trolling public P2P networks.”

Legitimate downloading services do not escape the EFF’s
analysis, either. Referring the DRM-encumbered downloads from stores like
iTunes, the EFF writes:

“While
these restrictions, when considered in a vacuum, may strike some as reasonable,
they make for a less-than-attractive carrot when dangled in front of music fans
used to the unencumbered MP3 files they find on P2P networks. At the same time,
the DRM technologies have not succeeded in keeping any “protected” songs off
the Internet. In fact, the existence of these restrictions gives otherwise
law-abiding customers a reason to seek out P2P channels when their legitimate
expectations are frustrated (after all, these are the customers who paid for
the music they could have obtained for free!).”

Interestingly, the EFF seems to feel that illegal file
sharing and P2P piracy may actually be in a state of regression: with the dropping
costs of high-capacity storage media, friends and social circles have returned
to swapping CDs instead of downloads; with the cost of optical media dropping,
this is easier than ever. Moreso, users are not just swapping CDs, but may also
be trading hard drives filled with music, allowing pirates to trade files at a rate faster than P2P networks.

The report ends with remarkable proposal: rather than
continuing lawsuits against its own customers, the EFF proposes a “voluntary
collective licensing scheme” not unlike the royalties systems used for
performance venues, radiostations, and restaurants. Essentially, P2P
filetrading would be legal if the trader paid a monthly fee:

“The
music industry forms one or more collecting societies, which then offers file
sharing music fans the opportunity to “get legit” in exchange for a reasonable
regular payment, say $5 per month. So long as they pay, the fans are free to
keep doing what they are going to do anyway -- share the music they love using
whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer -- without
fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rightsholders based on
the popularity of their music. In exchange, file sharing music fans who pay (or
have their ISP or software provider or other intermediary
pay on their behalf) will be free to download whatever they like, using
whatever software works best for them. The more people share, the more money
goes to rights-holders. The more competition in P2P software, the more rapid
the innovation and improvement. The more freedom for fans to upload what they
care about, the deeper the catalog.”

The concept is not new, however, as companies like Napster
have already done it for a few years now with its “unlimited access” rental program,
where consumers have free access to a large library provided they keep paying
the monthly fee. The key difference between the EFF’s scheme and rental
services, however, is that users, not rightsholders, retain control over the
files downloaded, the software used for playback, and the means of acquisition;
a stark contrast to the “walled gardens” that permeate the digital music market
of today.

According to Ars
Technica, the idea
has already been passed around by EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann at a Beverly
Hills DRM conference last spring. The labels refused, citing that consumers
would “pay exactly once,” download everything they wanted, then immediately
cease all future payments.

"This is about money, not morality," says von Lohmann. "With a blanket
licensing solution, the RIAA can call off the lawyers and the
lobbyists, and universities can get back to education instead of
copyright enforcement."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sure you, just like people eat cows so there is more space to grow crops.I disagree with your post, Michael Jackson was promoted (jackson 5) Nirvana was promoted(mothers screaming that it was evil) The reason a good band needs a studio and marketing firm in the first place, is because, even though they may have a great band and music and album, no one knows of them, they won't get airtime, how the hell are they gonna get on a radio station for petes sake, except for maybe one song at a late hour on a special segment for underheard music, that someone will say hey that is pretty good, i hope they make it big and then i'll even consider getting there music. If they don't have a producer and marketing behind them, they are dead in the water. Art for money i think is the best possible situation too. If an artist can't focus on his/her art, then that art will not be as good as it could be, sure there are the few exceptions, but I would rather people be able to make a living for providing us all the entertainment that they do.

The problem is systemic - i.e. the reason good bands can't get air play without a marketing and promotional campaign is because all the other crappy bands filling up the radio do have those things. The music industry needs to stop controlling what is on the air, and let the radio stations and thus their listeners decide.Art for money is great. Art for the sake of money is horrible. What I think you ment to say is money for art. Money for art is great. Art for money is not.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet. A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis